The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Jun 28, 3:38*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc.

It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health.
And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed
studies by real scientists over decades that prove the
case.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...

The denialists? Where are their studies?

crickets....




Yes a fascinating collection of quotes, little snippets from here
and there, undated as always. * Not from AIDS researchers or viral
disease experts,

You've got to get over this pseudo-religion you practice, where only
certain, approved researchers ("high priests") are allowed to express
opinions, or review the data.

Sorry, but around here we call that evaluating the sources
of information.

No, what it means is that unless *your* high priest says it's so, it
ain't. And vice versa. You would have made a great follower of Jim
Jones!

Time to look in the mirror. I don't have one high priest or even
a few. I have hundreds of thousands of real scientists, qualified
in the fields in question, ie virology, infectious diseases and
medicine who all agree that HIV causes AIDS. I have every
major health institution worldwide. You are the
one hanging your hat on a few characters on the margins of
science, most of whom are NOT trained experts in the fields
they are pontificating about. One of them, for example,
apparently has written a book where he talks about meeting
glowing alien squirrels and not when he's on LSD either.




You still lack even the first clue as to what The Scientific Method is
all about.

What a shame.

HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

No, it can't.

Only ANTIBODIES to HIV can be detected.

Another big lie repeated.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral
genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and
cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and
requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques
have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests (Jackson et al. J
Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16; Busch et al. NEJM 1991;325:1; Silvester et
al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et
al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong et al. AIDS 1999;13:109;
Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55."

HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled
researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV
has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal
secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the
epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity
and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol
1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)."


Numerous studies say you're a liar. Where are YOUR studies?

crickets.....



As to all the different diseases, no mystery there to anyone
with even a basic understanding of AIDS. *HIV destroys the
immune system, leaving the person open to all kinds of
opportunistic infections. *The particular ones any given AIDS
patient will develop is dependent on where they live,
what diseases they are exposed to, etc.

As usual, you have it totally backwards.

AFTER your immune system has been heavily weakened or destroyed by
AIDS drugs, the long-term abuse of IV and other recreational drugs,
heavy drinking, lack of sleep, inhaling poppers, having receptive anal
sex with 100s of male partners per month, getting infected with
numerous STDs and other parasites, taking antibiotics
prophylactically, eating poorly, practicing poor hygiene, etc., you
have an excellent chance of getting "AIDS."

If that theory were true, then it should be easy to show a study
that shows that absent HIV infection, people in the above
groups have immune systems totally depleted of CD4 cells.
And that those immune systems can't recover even if
they return to a healthy lifestyle.
Of course you have no such study because the above is
another lie. And the actual scenario conforms perfectly
to HIV causing AIDS.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a
person will develop AIDS.

Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns
and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals
from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women,
homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of
hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and
infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator
being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).

In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining
illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-
infected.

For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV
Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive
were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness
than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide
a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research.

In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a
median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in
individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the
fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug
use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet
1993;341:658)."

Where are YOUR studies?

crickets....



The vast majority of those said to have "AIDS" today have never even
been tested for HIV antibodies, much less the actual HIV virus.

That's yet another lie. In fact, even in Africa, HIV testing is
widely
available today:

http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm

HIV testing is vitally important in order to access treatment, and
knowledge of one’s positive status can lead to behaviours to protect
other people from infection. The 2007-2011 National Strategic Plan
aimed for one quarter of all people to take a test every year by 2011,
with the proportion of those ever taking a test rising to 70 percent.
76 The latest National Strategic Plan has set out more ambitious
targets, aiming to ensure that everyone in South Africa is voluntarily
tested every year.77

There is evidence that testing levels have improved as the 2009
National Communications Survey found 60 percent of all men and women
studied had been tested in the last 12 months, an increase of 36
percent since 2006.78

An HIV rapid test kit used in voluntary counselling and testing in
rural South Africa

According to UNAIDS, almost 7 million South Africans aged 15 years
and over (or one quarter of the adult population) received HIV testing
and counselling in 2009.79 80 Moreover, the launch of the national HIV
counselling and testing (HTC) campaign in April 2010 resulted in a
remarkable increase in the number of people accessing testing. In his
2011 health budget policy speech, health minister Motsoaledi announced
that 11.9 million people now test for HIV each year."

And in the end, this has nothing to do with proving HIV causes AIDS.
The burdens the denialist erect and require for proof are ones that
never could be met by any disease. And even if they are, you just
lie.
The classic is denying that HIV has ever been isolated from an
AIDS patient. If you lie and deny that most basic fact, then
there is NOTHING that could prove anything to you. Denialists
are not looking at science, at studies. They have a predetermined
conclusion and nothing will change it.

Then they wonder why colleages, indeeds anyone with a brain
thinks they are nuts.....



Usually brought on by long-term recreational drug abuse,
burning the candle at both ends for years, malnutrition, not getting
any sleep, inhaling poppers, drinking heavily, eating poorly, and
taking AIDS drugs (AZT, etc.).

The lie repeated. *Where is the study that supports the above?
For this nonsense to have ANY validity, you'd have to start
with the simple study that shows it's possible for a person
to totally destroy their immune system, via lack of sleep,
diet, drinking, or recreational drugs.

That "study" is currently going on in Africa and parts of Asia.

Of course you say that because you have no studies.

Here one more time are the studies that say you're a liar:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a
person will develop AIDS.

Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns
and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals
from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women,
homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of
hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and
infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator
being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).

In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining
illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-
infected.

For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV
Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive
were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness
than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide
a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research.

In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a
median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in
individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the
fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug
use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet
1993;341:658).




On the other hand, we do have the studies that show in
all the groups you listed above, absent HIV infection
the people never get AIDS.

No, they get EXACTLY the same old diseases they've died from for
thousands of years.

Another big lie repeated. We all know that gay men for
example, were not coming down with PCP pneumonia
or Kaposi's Sarcoma prior to 1980. We also know that
absent HIV infection, gay men with exactly the same
behaviors never get AIDS unless they are infected with
HIV. Same scenario for IV drug abusers. And note
the distinction there too. You can abuse drugs all you
want and you never get AIDS as long as you're not
an IV drug abuser. See how that works? HIV is
transmitted via blood, ergo if you snort heroin, you
can't contract it. Share a dirty needle and you can.

As for Africa, it's a lie there as well.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases
have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll
now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well-
educated members of the middle class.

In developing countries, the emergence of the HIV epidemic has
dramatically changed patterns of disease in affected communities. As
in developed countries, previously rare, "opportunistic" diseases such
as PCP and certain forms of meningitis have become more commonplace.
In addition, as HIV seroprevalence rates have risen, there have been
significant increases in the burden of endemic conditions such as
tuberculosis (TB), particularly among young people. For example, as
HIV seroprevalence increased sharply in Blantyre, Malawi from 1986 to
1995, tuberculosis admissions at the city's main hospital rose more
than 400 percent, with the largest increase in cases among children
and young adults. In the rural Hlabisa District of South Africa,
admissions to tuberculosis wards increased 360 percent from 1992 to
1998, concomitant with a steep rise in HIV seroprevalence. High rates
of mortality due to endemic conditions such as TB, diarrheal diseases
and wasting syndromes, formerly confined to the elderly and
malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged
people in many developing countries (UNAIDS, 2000; Harries et al. Int
J Tuberc Lung Dis 1997;1:346; Floyd et al. JAMA 1999;282:1087)."

Where are the denialist studies?

crickets.





TB, malaria, wasting, slim disease, etc.

But today we call it "AIDS."

You can be a drug abusing
hooker that doesn't sleep and unless you are HIV+
you do not get AIDS and die.

And that's because they're treated with AIDS drugs!

What a remarkabe disease. It manifested itself in all kinds
of groups, producing the exact same thing, ie destruction of
CD4 immune cells, something never seen before 1980 or so.
Yet we're supposed to believe that it's caused by:

too much sex in one group
not enough sleep and diet in another
recreational drug abuse in another
AIDS drugs in another
hemophiliacs just dying anyway
soccer moms, who knows?

Of course to anyone other than a denialist kook, the
real cause, HIV and how it presents itself in all
those groups is the only case that makes any
sense. And key proof is that in all those groups,
absent HIV infection, they never get AIDS.





It'll sink in some day, but it probably won't be anytime soon.

And in case anyone would like to see what would happen to you if you
were to practice a similar lifestyle, give it a try yourself. See what
happens. It won't take long at all.

A person who abuses drugs or doesn't get enough sleep
may have health problems.

Don't just limit it to those two behaviors, it's the entire panoply of
destructive behaviors I've been describing that ultimately destroys a
person's immune system OVER TIME.

Currently a third of new AIDS cases in the USA are
NOT gay men, IV drug abusers, or in any high risk group.
Included in that group are soccer moms and grandmas
who got infected with HIV from a male sex partner. We
find the partner and sure enough they are infected with
HIV. Of course the denialists have to turn them into prostitutes
abusing IV drugs to try to make their pathetic case.
And that is a lie and offensive.




That's not true, because Africans, for the most part, are never tested
for HIV antibodies. They usually go by the Bangui definition of
"AIDS."

Sure all Africans are not tested. But millions upon millions
have been to confirm any doubts. The denialists just
put up hurdles that no
infectious disease could satisfy. We routinely use
antibody testing for many infectious diseases today.
Yet denialists want to try to make something out of it,
claiming that HIV hasn't been isolated from every
person dying of AIDS in Africa. Using the same
nonsense you could deny that the hepatitis virus
is the cause of hepatitis, because we dont' isolate
the actual virus in every patient.

And of course, if we did isolate in every patient,
why then THAT would be used by the denialists
and twisted into some kind of "proof". It's classic
behavior for conspiracy and similar nuts. Whatever
you have, it's not right. Like the 911 denialists who
claim a plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon
because the hole in the building isn't the right size.
The fact is the hole could never be the right size.
Whatever size it was, it would be wrong, because
they have already arrived at a nutty conclusion
which says a plane wasn't there.


Why would anyone need to have their immune system
"treated" if HIV is harmless?

Because having a compromised immune system isn't!

Again, if HIV is harmless, why is the immune system
compromised in these people to begin with? We have study
after study in group after group that shows the same
thing. For example, a group of drug abusers, absent
HIV infection, never get AIDS, despite the fact that they
have exactly the same risk factors and lifestyle, except
they are HIV-. I've given you the studies above.

Powerful proof.

Your studies.... crickets.



Out of 10 HIV+ patients in a control group (no attempts made to treat
their immune systems), 1 developed ARC, and two more went on to die
from AIDS.

Exactly what's to be expected

Exactly! Bravo!

Yes, when you don't treat HIV infection, people die.
No surprise.

People die from those same diseases every single day, and in far
greater numbers, yet are HIV negative.



That lie is demolished above by the NIH complete with
study after study. It shows that the disease profile of
what people are dying of in for example Africa has
changed radically with the arrival of AIDS. Just like
in the USA, people are coming down with opportunistic
infections which were previously rare.

And while the denialists want to paint Africa with a
broad, almost racist brush, claiming everyone
is just starving and
it's nothing new, nothing could be further from the
truth. AIDS has taken a huge toll on the middle
class in Africa, ie people who are NOT starving
or living in poor conditions are dying at 25.
They do all have one thing in common. They are
all infected with HIV. Of course you won't
accept that because we haven't sent Gallo to
each body to isolate the actual virus. And
if we did, why you'd have some lame excuse
to get out of that one too....

On Jun 30, 11:33*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:06:47 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]


It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health.
And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed
studies by real scientists over decades that prove the
case.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...


The denialists? Where are their studies?

crickets....




It's the opinion of the writers. You call it "faulty logic," while
others would call it being truthful.

You've driven yourself so mad that now you're not responding
to my last post. You're responding to OLD posts all over
again as if they were new.



You've got to get over this pseudo-religion you practice, where only
certain, approved researchers ("high priests") are allowed to express
opinions, or review the data.

Again, replying to an old post as if it were current.



That's because they can read, and they know it's impossible for a
mostly harmless retrovirus (that can't even be found in the vast
majority of AIDS patients, even full-blown AIDS patients!) couldn't
possibly cause almost 30 different diseases, but that drugs (and other
lifestyles that can weaken, even destroy, the immune system) can.

Again, from an old post, not current. But worth demolishing anyway
because it's such an outrageous lie.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled
researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV
has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal
secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the
epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity
and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol
1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).

Numerous studies of HIV-infected people have shown that high levels of
infectious HIV, viral antigens, and HIV nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) in
the body predict immune system deterioration and an increased risk for
developing AIDS. Conversely, patients with low levels of virus have a
much lower risk of developing AIDS.

For example, in an anlysis of 1,604 HIV-infected men in the
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), the risk of a patient developing
AIDS with six years was strongly associated with levels of HIV RNA in
the plasma as measured by a sensitive test known as the branched-DNA
signal-amplification assay (bDNA):"


And your studies to support your lie?

crickets




They like to invent every alternate
explanation. *A different one for hemophiliacs, a different one for
IV drug abusers, a different one for soccer moms, a different one
for AIDS in Africa.

Actually, the reason is precisely the same for each of them. Immune
destruction. Usually brought on by long-term recreational drug abuse,
burning the candle at both ends for years, malnutrition, not getting
any sleep, inhaling poppers, drinking heavily, eating poorly, and
taking AIDS drugs (AZT, etc.).

At least you got the first part right,
which is that the reason is precisely the same for all of them.
And that is the destruction of their immune systems. Yet earlier
when it suits you, you try to make something mysterious or
sinister out of the fact that these patients then come down
with a whole host of "bewildering" opportunistic infections.

The rest of course is the denialist lie repeated, trying to
claim that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use or
burning the candle at both ends. It's been shown in
study after study, that absent HIV infection people in
all the groups you listed, NEVER DEVELOP AIDS. To
believe otherwise is to ignore 3 decades of sound science,
which of course is exactly what denialists do. Here
again is just a part of that sound science that says
you're a liar:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a
person will develop AIDS.

Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns
and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals
from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women,
homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of
hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and
infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator
being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).

In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining
illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-
infected.

For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV
Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive
were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness
than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide
a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research.

In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a
median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in
individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the
fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug
use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet
1993;341:658)."

Where are your studies?

crickets.

Where is ANY study that shows that a person can totally destroy
their immune system by abusing drugs or burning the candle at
both ends? That is the very core of this nonsensical argument,
yet we have not a single study that says the possibility even
exists. Destroy the immune system specifically so that CD4
cells are nearczero and that despite stopping the behavior that
you allege causes it, their immune systems never recover.

Of course that study does not exist because it's a lie. On
the other hand we have study after study that shows HIV
infection causes exactly that.



And in case anyone would like to see what would happen to you if you
were to practice a similar lifestyle, give it a try yourself. See what
happens. It won't take long at all.

But make sure your Last Will & Testament is current first!

That advice is really appropriate to the denialist nuts that
believe what you do, which is that HIV is harmless. They
refuse to take AIDS drugs and they are dead now. At least
the ones from a decade or more ago are almost all dead.
Exactly as we'd expect, knowing that HIV causes AIDS.
They've been replaced by a new crop of fools, making
new denialist videos. Instead those video makers should
visit the graves of their predecessors.

Here's a couple dozen dead ones for you. Now, if HIV
is just harmless and AIDS drugs cause AIDS, why
are these HIV+ people, who are not taking drugs,
dropping dead at 35?

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists


Let's just end with the most basic denialist lie of yours.
And that is your claim that HIV has never been isolated
from an AIDS patient. That alone is enough to define
your level of science and what you really are. Where
do you think Gallo and Montagnier found HIV? In
moon rocks, in a cabbage patch?

On Jul 4, 12:14*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:16:18 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc.

It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health.
And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed
studies by real scientists over decades that prove the
case.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...

The denialists? Where are their studies?

crickets....



The Yin and Yang of HIV

By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre

Published over three issue of NEXUS Magazine beginning January 1999

Of course NEXUS is not a peer reviewed forum. Gee, I
wonder why they published their article there?



SUMMARY

The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is
based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically
induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk
groups.

And right there folks, in the first sentence, we're off to denialist
lala land. Set up a false strawman and then argue against it.
The fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is based only PARTLY
on the above evidence. We have a whole host of ADDITIONAL
proof. We have the actual HIV virus isolated from AIDS patients
over and over again by researchers. Of course the denialists
will claim that isn't good enough or better still that it can't be
done
at all, because the virus doesn't even exist.

We have the virus in AIDS patients DNA matched back to
the identical virus in a person that is suspected of having
infected the patient. And of course, that person too turns
out to have AIDS.

We've shown the existence of HIV and how it infects immune
cells in the lab.

We've shown that several lab workers, who were accidentally
exposed to HIV, became infected and developed AIDS.

We've shown how HIV is transmitted from mother to
child at birth. And we've shown how that infection rate was
25%, but now with HIV drugs, it's been reduced to just
3%. Powerful proof.





However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a
decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg
from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in
Australia.

There are some people who still believe Elvis is alive, that airplanes
did not hit the WTC on 911 and that the holocaust is a myth too.
Should we all take them seriously? Of course not, because like
the AIDS denialists, their story is a house of cards.



Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk
groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals, especially non-drug
using prostitutes, signals that the HIV theory of AIDS is in need of
urgent reappraisal.

It's not 1999, it's 2012.
Today about 1/3 of new AIDS cases in the USA are in
people who are NOT gay or bisexual men or drug abusers.
That number has been growing year by year. Of course
this denialist paper is from 13 years ago, because denialists
like to play in the past.

Demolished!

NExt!





This has serious implications for both the way
science has been conducted and public health policy and planning. The
HIV theory has cost billions of dollars and locked in enormous amount
of energy in research by thousands of scientists worldwide. So far, it
has yet to save a single life.

Which was an outrageous lie even in 1999 and should tell
any reasonable person what a crock this is. At that point,
for 15+ years we knew HIV caused AIDS. And while we
could not cure it, knowing that saved millions of lives
because knowing how it's caused, many people shifted
their behavior to avoid getting infected. Many gay men
and prostitutes started using condoms. MAny IV drug
abusers stopped sharing needles.
We screened blood donations
during that period. And just as soon as a test for HIV in
blood was available, hemophiliacs and blood transfusion
recipients stopped getting infected with HIV and stopped
dying. Powerful evidence, except to denialists.
You'd have to be quite the imbecile to claim that knowing
HIV is the cause of AIDS has not saved a single life.
Either that or an AIDS denialist with an agenda.




There is an urgent need to establish a
truly independent, and distinguished international committee to review
the current theories and those that challenge them. There needs to be
a co-operative but urgent reassessment of AIDS.

Those independent and distinguished research committees
have already taken place in independent forums around the
world. And the irrefutable conclusion reached is
that HIV causes AIDS. The problem is the denialists, many of
whom deny even the existence of HIV, will never accept the
scientifically sound conclusion.




A BRIEF HISTORY

A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters

In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was
employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up
analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a
virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause
of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1)

* * "I disagreed. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual
who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease
would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until
that disease was cured and forgotten… There had to be a published
paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that
HIV was the probable cause of AIDS". Otherwise, as Mullis was forced
to conclude, "The entire campaign against a disease increasingly
regarded as the twentieth-century Black Death was based on a
hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both
scientific and common sense".

Back to this again? Mullis was tasked by his employer to work
on a test for HIV. He demanded proof that HIV is the cause of
AIDS and is told he doesn't need one, but he disagree. Sounds
like his superiors at NIH were right. He was a chemist and they
were employing him to help with a test for HIV. They had every
right to tell him that proving HIV causes AIDS is out of his
bailywick and to just do his job.



A decade later Mullis was to write, "I finally understood why I was
having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS.
There weren’t any".(2) Indeed, an interested non-specialist observer,
armed with a few contacts and a good library, merely has to scratch
the surface to realise that the HIV theory of AIDS begs many more
questions than it answers.(1-63 *)

This from the guy who in his book apparently writes about
talking to glowing alien raccoons.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

"Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon.
Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around
midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left
sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a
flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree.
Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with
little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’
and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the raccoon
‘was some sort of holographic projection and… that multidimensional
physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible’. Mullis denies LSD
having anything at all to do with this.[32]"




The beginnings of AIDS

The few years leading up to the AIDS era and the discovery of HIV are
illuminating. It was a time when a promiscuous minority of young,
"liberated", gay men in a few large American cities were increasingly
developing previously uncommon diseases such as fatal forms of the
malignancy Kaposis' sarcoma and a fungal pneumonia known as PCP.

And about the same time, hemophiliacs also suddenly started to
develop AIDS and many of the same opportunistic infections. So
did some blood transfusion recipients. And IV drug abusers.

So, there goes the theory of pointing the finger at gay liberation.
Except of course to the denialis loons. Knowing that HIV causes
AIDS real science can explain why it shows up in every one of
those groups.

And just as soon as a test for HIV was available, AIDS in
hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients stopped, just
as suddenly as it had started. And we know from study after
study today, conducted not just here but by researchers
all around the world, that absent HIV infection, people in all those
risk groups never develop AIDS.

More denialist nonsense smashed.

Next!


At the time, whilst it was reasonable to implicate an infectious microbe
transmitted by rampant, indiscriminant sexual practices interspersed
with needle sharing drug taking, the fact that immune suppression had
multiple causes was also known in 1981. Some considered the diseases
resulted from multiple assaults to bodily functions caused by the many
and varied diseases, toxins and treatments that accompanied the gay
and drug taking lifestyle that had evolved during the late 1970s.

Oh the longing for the good old days. Back to 1981. Even then,
the theory that one can totally destroy their immune system with
drugs, sex, or lack of sleep sounded very far fetched. For
example, drug abuse of all kinds has been around for centuries.
So, why had we not seen AIDS before? And soon thereafter, more
proof came in. It was only IV drug abusers who came down with
AIDS. You can abuse the same drugs, ingest all the drugs you want
and while you may die of a drug overdose, you won't die of AIDS
unless you share a dirty needle. Today we have study after study
that shows absent HIV infection, people in any of the risk groups
NEVER DEVELOP AIDS. Very powerful proof.

And then to top it off, we have this idea that a person can just
totally destroy their immune system with lack of sleep or drug
abuse so that it can't recover even when the alleged cause
is reversed. Where is the study that shows this is possible
or exists? It's central to this denialist argument. Of course
the study doesn't exist because it's just another lie.


Demolished!

NExt!


Just how extensive these multiple assaults were was indicated by the
English journalist Neville Hodgkinson documenting the range of
infections of just one homosexual, the late Michael Callen in his book
"AIDS The failure of contemporary science: How a virus that never was
deceived the world".(29) "Non-specific urethritis, hepatitis A, more
NSU and gonorrhoea, amoebas [intestinal parasites]-and hepatitis B,
more NSU and gonorrhoea, more amoebas, shigella, non-A, non-B
hepatitis, giardia, anal fissures, syphilis, more gonorrhoea [penile,
anal and oral], gonorrhoea, shigella twice, more amoebas, herpes
simplex types I and II; venereal warts, salmonella; chlamydia;
cytomegalovirus (CMV); Epstein-Barr virus (EBV); mononucleosis and
cryptosporidiosis", ("a disease of cattle!"). Indeed, an early US
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study confirmed that the first 100
men with AIDS had a median lifetime number of 1120 sex partners.(30)
As Callen himself put it, "I got some combination of venereal diseases
EACH AND EVERY TIME I had sex". Not surprisingly, given the widespread
belief of a causal relationship between immunity and the maintenance
of health, in 1981 the "new" disease became known as Gay Related
Immune Deficiency (GRID). In fact none of the diseases was new. Some
were known to occur in drug addicts and haemophiliacs long before the
AIDS era. What was "new" was their exponentially escalating prevalence
in gay men.

Again, we have study after study that shows in gay men, absent
HIV infection, they never develop AIDS, despite having the
same risky behavior and exposure to all the same veneral diseases,
etc. Only when they are infected with HIV do
they develop AIDS.

Demolished!

NExt!




Technology and Virology

Coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS era a technique was
developed to classify and count the different types of lymphocyte
white blood cells. It was noticed that some AIDS patients had
diminished numbers of the so called T4 "helper" cell subtype and,
despite lack of proof, the cells were assumed to be dying at the
behest of an agent selectively targeting them. This became the
"hallmark" of AIDS as well as forming a measure of the amount of
immune deficiency. In turn, this "immune deficiency", (the "AID" in
AIDS) caused the diseases (the "S" in AIDS) that constitute the
clinical syndrome. The perceptions that T4 cells were dying and AIDS
was infectious led to the theory that AIDS is caused by a microbial
organism.

Five years prior to the AIDS era a few laboratories around the world
were drawing towards the end of a fruitless search to prove a viral
cause for human cancers.

Update! It's now 2012.

Press Release

6 October 2008

"The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to
award
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2008 with one half to
Harald zur Hausen for his discovery of "human papilloma viruses
causing cervical cancer" and the other half jointly to
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier
for their discovery of "human immunodeficiency virus"


Now, you gotta love that one. The same Nobel Prize was
shared by the scientist who showed the HPV virus causes
cancer and the scientist who discovered HIV.

Must be something for the denialist nut who claims no
virus can cause cancer and HIV doesn't exist.

Demolished!

Next!




First proclamations

In May 1983 Professor Luc Montagnier and his colleagues at the Pasteur
Institute of Paris published a paper in Science entitled, "Isolation
of a T-Lymphotrophic Retrovirus from a patient at Risk for Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).(64)

It is important to note that
the first word in this paper, ‘Isolation’, serves as a signal that the
researcher is claiming proof for the existence of a new virus.

Gee, Dogman claims HIV has never been isolated.
Yet here he is posting proof. Confused as ever.



In the
interests of science, on several occasions, Montagnier sent samples of
his tissue cultures to the Gallo laboratory in America with the
express understanding these "could be used for biomedical, biological
and molecular biological studies".(65)

And Gallo also isolated HIV from AIDS patient tissue.
Thanks again Dogman for proving you're just a clueless
denialist trapped in a web of lies.

On Jul 5, 3:52*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc.


Sure, AIDS inc. Just like hepatitis inc, cancer inc...
Pick your disease. Dogman obviously has big issues
with not only sound science, but also capitalism.

It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health.
And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed
studies by real scientists over decades that prove the
case.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...


The denialists? Where are their studies?


crickets....



The Yin and Yang of HIV

By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre

Published over three issue of NEXUS Magazine beginning January 1999

SUMMARY

The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is
based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically
induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk
groups.

This lie was examined and demolished several posts ago.
Just for starters, the denialists set a false, phoney strawman
because that's all they can argue against. It's true that the
fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is based PARTLY on
the above, it's not the only proof. Of course, the denialists
ignore all the other mountains of proof outlined in my
previous posts. Proof like 3 lab workers get accidentally
exposed to HIV and acquire AIDS. Proof like HIV has
been isolated virtually every time in AIDS patients when
scientists have gone looking for it, as opposed to antibodies.


However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a
decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg
from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in
Australia. Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk
groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals,

The outrageous lie repeated. Have you no shame? One
third of new AIDS cases in the USA are now among people
who are NOT in the original high risk groups, ie promiscous
gay men, IV drug abusers. So, the disease is clearly
infecting those beyone the original risk groups. You just
want to ignore the soccer moms, senior citizens, etc that
wind up infected with HIV and developing AIDS. Knowing
that HIV causes AIDS, we can explain those cases and
track them back to a partner with HIV. The denialists have
to claim those patients were really secretly drug abuser,
or gay men. Kind of hard to imagine a soccer mom or
baby being a gay man, but that's what the denialist kooks
want you to accept.





A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters

In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was
employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up
analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a
virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause
of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1)

You mean this Kary Mullis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

"Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon.
Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around
midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left
sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a
flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree.
Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with
little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’
and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the raccoon
‘was some sort of holographic projection and… that multidimensional
physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible’. Mullis denies LSD
having anything at all to do with this.[32]"

Enough said.




The few years leading up to the AIDS era and the discovery of HIV are
illuminating. It was a time when a promiscuous minority of young,
"liberated", gay men in a few large American cities were increasingly
developing previously uncommon diseases such as fatal forms of the
malignancy Kaposis' sarcoma and a fungal pneumonia known as PCP. At
the time, whilst it was reasonable to implicate an infectious microbe
transmitted by rampant, indiscriminant sexual practices interspersed
with needle sharing drug taking, the fact that immune suppression had
multiple causes was also known in 1981. Some considered the diseases
resulted from multiple assaults to bodily functions caused by the many
and varied diseases, toxins and treatments that accompanied the gay
and drug taking lifestyle that had evolved during the late 1970s.

Just how extensive these multiple assaults were was indicated by the
English journalist Neville Hodgkinson documenting the range of
infections of just one homosexual, the late Michael Callen in his book
"AIDS The failure of contemporary science: How a virus that never was
deceived the world".(29) "Non-specific urethritis, hepatitis A, more
NSU and gonorrhoea, amoebas [intestinal parasites]-and hepatitis B,
more NSU and gonorrhoea, more amoebas, shigella, non-A, non-B
hepatitis, giardia, anal fissures, syphilis, more gonorrhoea [penile,
anal and oral], gonorrhoea, shigella twice, more amoebas, herpes
simplex types I and II; venereal warts, salmonella; chlamydia;
cytomegalovirus (CMV); Epstein-Barr virus (EBV); mononucleosis and
cryptosporidiosis", ("a disease of cattle!"). Indeed, an early US
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study confirmed that the first 100
men with AIDS had a median lifetime number of 1120 sex partners.(30)
As Callen himself put it, "I got some combination of venereal diseases
EACH AND EVERY TIME I had sex". Not surprisingly, given the widespread
belief of a causal relationship between immunity and the maintenance
of health, in 1981 the "new" disease became known as Gay Related
Immune Deficiency (GRID). In fact none of the diseases was new. Some
were known to occur in drug addicts and haemophiliacs long before the
AIDS era. What was "new" was their exponentially escalating prevalence
in gay men.

Of course the denialist kooks have not one study that shows that
it's possible for someone to destroy their immune systems by
being exposed to excessive infections. It is ESSENTIAL to this
whole BS arguement, yet the denialists are unable to provide a
single study showing that it exists.

Do we know that abusing drugs, poor diet, etc can lower a person's
immunity and make them perhaps more susceptible from catching
the flu? Sure. But that is NOT what the denialist kooks claim.
They claim that it's possible, by acquiring many infections, to
totally destroy one's immune system to the point that it can't
recover. To the point that it can't recover despite the patient be
given antibiotics and heroic treatment for the current infection. In
fact,
the patients usually do recover from the current infection, but
later wind up with another infection and utlimately die from one.
The immune system decline is specifically measured in the loss
of CD4 cells approaching zero.

So, where is the study that shows this immune system destruction
is even possible, absent HIV?

crickets as always.

On the other hand, we have study after study that shows in
any of the risk groups, whether it's gay men, IV drug abusers,
or blood transfusion recipients, absent testing positive for
HIV, they NEVER get AIDS. And we have shown how HIV
destroys immune cells in the laboratory. How the progression
of AIDS, the decline of CD4 cells, tracks the increase in
HIV virus.

Powerful proof, except to a denialist with an agenda.





Five years prior to the AIDS era a few laboratories around the world
were drawing towards the end of a fruitless search to prove a viral
cause for human cancers.

Earth to Dogman. Since then, it's been proven that viruses can
cause human cancers. Not surprising, since the world with more
than a few connected brain cells has known for a long time that
viruses cause cancer in animals.

But then Dogman denies any virus can cause cancer. What
a scientific dunce.






First proclamations

In May 1983 Professor Luc Montagnier and his colleagues at the Pasteur
Institute of Paris published a paper in Science entitled, "Isolation
of a T-Lymphotrophic Retrovirus from a patient at Risk for Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).(64)
It is important to note that
the first word in this paper, ‘Isolation’, serves as a signal that the
researcher is claiming proof for the existence of a new virus.

I love it when you prove yourself a liar. You have repeatedly
denied that HIV has ever been isolated from an AIDS patient.



In the
interests of science, on several occasions, Montagnier sent samples of
his tissue cultures to the Gallo laboratory in America with the
express understanding these "could be used for biomedical, biological
and molecular biological studies".(65) However, Montagnier did not
claim to have proven his virus was the cause of AIDS and the French
discovery lay on the table until May 1984 when Gallo and Popovic and
their colleagues (66-69) published four papers also in Science. On the
23rd of April 1984, at ...



Uh huh. And Gallo isolated HIV from AIDS patients. And since
then, there are 3 decades of research proving HIV causes AIDS.
The denialists? They like to play in the past and have to ignore all
the
evidence of the last 3 decades.

Dogman, it really seems you're getting bent out of shape.
All the easy demolishing of all your BS, something even an
elementary school student could do, must be getting to you.
I see more and more off topic and irrelevant posts being made
by you. The LC group is now full of them. And in each and every
one, you have the compulsive need to have the final post.
Must be rough when you can't defend your denialist and
despicable BS.

On Jul 9, 4:43*pm, Dogman wrote:
Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc.


It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health.
And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed
studies by real scientists over decades that prove the
case.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...

The denialists? Where are their studies?

crickets....




The Yin and Yang of HIV

By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre

Published over three issue of NEXUS Magazine beginning January 1999

Of course NEXUS is not a peer reviewed forum. Gee, I
wonder why they published their 13 year old article there?
Where are the peer reviewed papers? crickets.




SUMMARY

The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is
based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically
induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk
groups.

And right there folks, in the first sentence, we're off to denialist
lala land. Set up a false strawman and then argue against it.
The fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is based only PARTLY
on the above evidence. We have a whole host of ADDITIONAL
proof. We have the actual HIV virus isolated from AIDS patients
over and over again by researchers. Of course the denialists
will claim that isn't good enough or better still that it can't be
done
at all, because the virus doesn't even exist.

We have the virus in AIDS patients DNA matched back to
the identical virus in a person that is suspected of having
infected the patient. And of course, that person too turns
out to have AIDS.


We've shown the existence of HIV and how it infects immune
cells in the lab.


We've shown that several lab workers, who were accidentally
exposed to HIV, became infected and developed AIDS.


We've shown how HIV is transmitted from mother to
child at birth. And we've shown how that infection rate was
25%, but now with HIV drugs, it's been reduced to just
3%. Powerful proof.




However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a
decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg
from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in
Australia.

There are some people who still believe Elvis is alive, that
airplanes
did not hit the WTC on 911 and that the holocaust is a myth too.
Should we all take them seriously? Of course not, because like
the AIDS denialists, their story is a house of cards.




Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk
groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals, especially non-drug
using prostitutes, signals that the HIV theory of AIDS is in need of
urgent reappraisal.

It's not 1999, it's 2012.
Today about 1/3 of new AIDS cases in the USA are in
people who are NOT gay or bisexual men or drug abusers.
That number has been growing year by year. Of course
this denialist paper is from 13 years ago, because denialists
like to play in the past.

Demolished!

NExt!



This has serious implications for both the way
science has been conducted and public health policy and planning. The
HIV theory has cost billions of dollars and locked in enormous amount
of energy in research by thousands of scientists worldwide. So far, it
has yet to save a single life.

Which was an outrageous lie even in 1999 and should tell
any reasonable person what a crock this is. At that point,
for 15+ years we knew HIV caused AIDS. And while we
could not cure it, knowing that saved millions of lives
because knowing how it's caused, many people shifted
their behavior to avoid getting infected. Many gay men
and prostitutes started using condoms. MAny IV drug
abusers stopped sharing needles.
We screened blood donations
during that period. And just as soon as a test for HIV in
blood was available, hemophiliacs and blood transfusion
recipients stopped getting infected with HIV and stopped
dying. Powerful evidence, except to denialists.
You'd have to be quite the imbecile to claim that knowing
HIV is the cause of AIDS has not saved a single life.
Either that or an AIDS denialist with an agenda.



There is an urgent need to establish a
truly independent, and distinguished international committee to review
the current theories and those that challenge them. There needs to be
a co-operative but urgent reassessment of AIDS.


Those independent and distinguished research committees
have already taken place in independent forums around the
world. And the irrefutable conclusion reached is
that HIV causes AIDS. The problem is the denialists, many of
whom deny even the existence of HIV, will never accept the
scientifically sound conclusion




A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must
accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a
model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make
definite predictions about the results of future observations.
-- Stephen Hawking

A BRIEF HISTORY

A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters

In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was
employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up
analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a
virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause
of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1)

* * "I disagreed. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual
who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease
would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until
that disease was cured and forgotten� There had to be a published
paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that
HIV was the probable cause of AIDS". Otherwise, as Mullis was forced
to conclude, "The entire campaign against a disease increasingly
regarded as the twentieth-century Black Death was based on a
hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both
scientific and common sense".

Back to this again? Mullis was tasked by his employer to work
on a test for HIV. He demanded proof that HIV is the cause of
AIDS and is told he doesn't need one, but he disagree. Sounds
like his superiors at NIH were right. He was a chemist and they
were employing him to help with a test for HIV. They had every
right to tell him that proving HIV causes AIDS is out of his
bailywick and to just do his job.




A decade later Mullis was to write, "I finally understood why I was
having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS.
There weren�t any".(2) Indeed, an interested non-specialist observer,
armed with a few contacts and a good library, merely has to scratch
the surface to realise that the HIV theory of AIDS begs many more
questions than it answers.(1-63 *)

This from the guy who in his book apparently writes about
talking to glowing alien raccoons.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis


"Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon.
Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California
around
midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left
sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a
flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree.
Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with
little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’
and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the
raccoon
‘was some sort of holographic projection and… that multidimensional
physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible’. Mullis denies LSD
having anything at all to do with this.[32]"




The beginnings of AIDS

The few years leading up to the AIDS era and the discovery of HIV are
illuminating. It was a time when a promiscuous minority of young,
"liberated", gay men in a few large American cities were increasingly
developing previously uncommon diseases such as fatal forms of the
malignancy Kaposis' sarcoma and a fungal pneumonia known as PCP.

And about the same time, hemophiliacs also suddenly started to
develop AIDS and many of the same opportunistic infections. So
did some blood transfusion recipients. And IV drug abusers.

So, there goes the theory of pointing the finger at gay liberation.
Except of course to the denialis loons. Knowing that HIV causes
AIDS real science can explain why it shows up in every one of
those groups.


And just as soon as a test for HIV was available, AIDS in
hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients stopped, just
as suddenly as it had started. And we know from study after
study today, conducted not just here but by researchers
all around the world, that absent HIV infection, people in all those
risk groups never develop AIDS.


More denialist nonsense smashed.

Next!




At
the time, whilst it was reasonable to implicate an infectious microbe
transmitted by rampant, indiscriminant sexual practices interspersed
with needle sharing drug taking, the fact that immune suppression had
multiple causes was also known in 1981. Some considered the diseases
resulted from multiple assaults to bodily functions caused by the many
and varied diseases, toxins and treatments that accompanied the gay
and drug taking lifestyle that had evolved during the late 1970s.


Oh the longing for the good old days. Back to 1981. Even then,
the theory that one can totally destroy their immune system with
drugs, sex, or lack of sleep sounded very far fetched. For
example, drug abuse of all kinds has been around for centuries.
So, why had we not seen AIDS before? And soon thereafter, more
proof came in. It was only IV drug abusers who came down with
AIDS. You can abuse the same drugs, ingest all the drugs you want
and while you may die of a drug overdose, you won't die of AIDS
unless you share a dirty needle. Today we have study after study
that shows absent HIV infection, people in any of the risk groups
NEVER DEVELOP AIDS. Very powerful proof.

And then to top it off, we have this idea that a person can just
totally destroy their immune system with lack of sleep or drug
abuse so that it can't recover even when the alleged cause
is reversed. Where is the study that shows this is possible
or exists? It's central to this denialist argument. Of course
the study doesn't exist because it's just another lie.


Demolished!


NExt!





Just how extensive these multiple assaults were was indicated by the
English journalist Neville Hodgkinson documenting the range of
infections of just one homosexual, the late Michael Callen in his book
"AIDS The failure of contemporary science: How a virus that never was
deceived the world".(29) "Non-specific urethritis, hepatitis A, more
NSU and gonorrhoea, amoebas [intestinal parasites]-and hepatitis B,
more NSU and gonorrhoea, more amoebas, shigella, non-A, non-B
hepatitis, giardia, anal fissures, syphilis, more gonorrhoea [penile,
anal and oral], gonorrhoea, shigella twice, more amoebas, herpes
simplex types I and II; venereal warts, salmonella; chlamydia;
cytomegalovirus (CMV); Epstein-Barr virus (EBV); mononucleosis and
cryptosporidiosis", ("a disease of cattle!"). Indeed, an early US
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study confirmed that the first 100
men with AIDS had a median lifetime number of 1120 sex partners.(30)
As Callen himself put it, "I got some combination of venereal diseases
EACH AND EVERY TIME I had sex". Not surprisingly, given the widespread
belief of a causal relationship between immunity and the maintenance
of health, in 1981 the "new" disease became known as Gay Related
Immune Deficiency (GRID). In fact none of the diseases was new. Some
were known to occur in drug addicts and haemophiliacs long before the
AIDS era. What was "new" was their exponentially escalating prevalence
in gay men.


Again, we have study after study that shows in gay men, absent
HIV infection, they never develop AIDS, despite having the
same risky behavior and exposure to all the same veneral diseases,
etc. Only when they are infected with HIV do
they develop AIDS.

Demolished!


NExt!




Technology and Virology

Coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS era a technique was
developed to classify and count the different types of lymphocyte
white blood cells. It was noticed that some AIDS patients had
diminished numbers of the so called T4 "helper" cell subtype and,
despite lack of proof, the cells were assumed to be dying at the
behest of an agent selectively targeting them. This became the
"hallmark" of AIDS as well as forming a measure of the amount of
immune deficiency. In turn, this "immune deficiency", (the "AID" in
AIDS) caused the diseases (the "S" in AIDS) that constitute the
clinical syndrome. The perceptions that T4 cells were dying and AIDS
was infectious led to the theory that AIDS is caused by a microbial
organism.

Five years prior to the AIDS era a few laboratories around the world
were drawing towards the end of a fruitless search to prove a viral
cause for human cancers.

Update! It's now 2012.

Press Release


6 October 2008


"The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to
award
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2008 with one half to
Harald zur Hausen for his discovery of "human papilloma viruses
causing cervical cancer" and the other half jointly to
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier
for their discovery of "human immunodeficiency virus"


Now, you gotta love that one. The same Nobel Prize was
shared by the scientist who showed the HPV virus causes
cancer and the scientist who discovered HIV.


Must be something for the denialist nut who claims no
virus can cause cancer and HIV doesn't exist.


Demolished!

Next!

But the above denialist nonsense is about what is
to be expected from the guy who claims:


HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer
No virus can cause cancer
HIV is harmless
AIDS is caused by poor diet, not enough sleep,
recreational drug use, or too much sex
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs
HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient
Prions don't cause Mad Cow disease
Prions don't exist.
Avoiding one stroke in 32 men every 5 years
by lowering blood pressure 10 points is a "slim benefit"
Blood pressure medications are dangerous and
cause death.


The above alone, which Dogman is proud of,
is more than enough to totally discredit him.

[...]
Blood pressure medications are dangerous and
cause death.

Since you enjoy using straw men, Trader Boy, here's one for you:

http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/...proved-deadly/

I.e., proof that "BP medications are dangerous and can cause death."

The above alone, which Dogman is proud of,

Absolutely!

And thanks again for a new opportunity to make a fool out of you!

Moron.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Jul 20, 12:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:24:47 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Dogman, it really seems you're getting bent out of shape.
All the easy demolishing of all your BS, something even an
elementary school student could do, must be getting to you.

Yes, an elementary school student would have yet learned how to think
and reason for himself, kind of like you, eh?

He would be the most likely to unquestionally go along with so-called
conventional wisdom, PR propaganda, and unadultered bull caca.

So...what elementary school do you attend, anyway?

I see more and more off topic and irrelevant posts being made
by you.

All of my posts here have relevance, provided one has the intellectual
rigor required for recognizing the particular relevance.

Which pretty much leaves you out, doesn't it?

The LC group is now full of them. *And in each and every
one, you have the compulsive need to have the final post.

There's only one thread here that's mostly irrelevant, i.e., the one
you're working overtime to keep going. *I.e., this one. Because you
have taken the subject of HIV and AIDS personally (for reasons that I
can only guess at).

The reasons are the same as the reasons for which
I'd denounce and speak out against a holocaust
denier. Hint: I'm not Jewish.

Same old AIDS denialist rant, without any studies
to back up any of the nonsense removed.....

But it's a good refresher on what your personal
versions of "science" is all about:

HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer

No virus can cause cancer

HIV is harmless

AIDS is caused by poor diet, not enough sleep,
recreational drug use, or too much sex

AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs

HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient

Prions don't cause Mad Cow disease

Prions don't exist.

Avoiding one stroke in 32 men every 5 years
by lowering blood pressure 10 points is a "slim benefit"

Blood pressure medications are dangerous and
cause death.

On Jul 28, 11:57*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:54:07 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

There's only one thread here that's mostly irrelevant, i.e., the one
you're working overtime to keep going. *I.e., this one. Because you
have taken the subject of HIV and AIDS personally (for reasons that I
can only guess at).

The reasons are the same as the reasons for which
I'd denounce and speak out against a holocaust
denier. *Hint: I'm not Jewish.

I can see that. Because to compare scientific dissent(!) with
Holocaust denial, is about the dumbest, most outrageous, most
dispicable thing a person can do, which is why I expect it from
someone like you.


They are the same thing in my book. The holocaust deniers
say exactly the same thing, that they are just legitimate history
dissenters. And just like the AIDS denialists, they ignore
the moutains of solid proof and instead use any lie they
can to try to fool people. The holocaust deniers claim
that the Jews either didn't die or died from other causes.
Exactly what you AIDS/HIV denialists do when you
come up with one bogus explanation after another to
explain away AIDS/HIV deaths in blood transfusion
recipients, hemophiliacs, soccer moms, Africans,
etc. The overwhelming truth supported by a mountain of
evidence is that they died from HIV/AIDS. You have
no studies, no data. When asked, the most you can
do is point to an opinion piece written by a denialist
kook who has no studies either.

And AIDS denialism needs to be denounced
for what it is because it's even more dangerous
than denying the holocaust.
There are some foolish enough to actually fall for
this crap and refuse to treat their disease because
they believe HIV is harmless. They wind up dead
as these dozens of examples did:

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists

Now, go ahead, try to explain away these deaths
at 35. Then there are others that will believe
the denialist lie that hiv is harmless and therefore
expose themselves or others to it. Say a person
infected with HIV believes your crap. Then they
should feel free to keep that a secret, not disclose
it to sexual partners, for example, because, it's just
harmless.

Then just like with holocaust deniers there is the
underlying bigotry. In your case, it's obvious when
you've implied several times now that I must be
infected with HIV because I speak out againt
your lies. Just like an anti-semitic holocaust
denier accusing those that speak out the truth with
being a dirty Jew.

And as for the rest of your junk "science", it's exposed
below for everyone to see:





But it's a good refresher on what your personal
versions of "science" is all about:

HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer

No, it is not.


No virus can cause cancer

There is no proof that a virus/retrovirus has ever caused cancer.


HIV is harmless
HIV is harmless

Mostly, yes. Which is why it's almost impossible to find the *actual*
virus in any person with AIDS.

A good example of a huge big denialist lie. This is like
the holocaust deniers claiming Auschwitz never existed.
It's NOT scientific debate, it;s a lie. And clearly it's
not "nearly impossible" to find the virus. The virus
was actually quickly found, starting from scratch within
just a couple years by Gallo and Montagnier, working
independently. They isolated it from AIDS patients.
Duh! Similarly the virus has been found in
virtually every AIDS patient, where there was a research
need to do so.

So, being a denialist,
you move on to the next tactic, which is to claim
that because the actual virus is not extracted from
every patient with the disease, something isn't right
here and it proves that HIV doesn't cause
AIDS. If that were true, hepatitis would not be caused
by the hepatitis virus either, because we do not
actually isolate the virus from every patient and instead
rely on antibody tests. With hepatitis, like with most
other diseases, the virus was found. It was indentified,
and then scientists came up with tests to determine if
a patient was infected. Those are antibody tests,
exactly the same kind of tests used to diagnose HIV
infection. And of course if the actual virus was
isolated from every single patient, why then the
denialists would be using THAT very unusual
procedure as evidence of something sinister
to try to support their arguments.

So, sorry, but when you turn to this kind
of lie, it is exactly the same thing that holocaust
deniers do and it puts you squarely in their
leagues.



AIDS is caused by poor diet, not enough sleep,
recreational drug use, or too much sex


This is something that anyone can test on him/herself.

Any takers?



AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs

Absolutely!


HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient

I've never said that. But this clearly shows how devious you can be.

Prions don't cause Mad Cow disease

There is no proof that "prions" cause anything.

On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:02:00 -0700 (PDT), "

I can see that. Because to compare scientific dissent(!) with
Holocaust denial, is about the dumbest, most outrageous, most
dispicable thing a person can do, which is why I expect it from
someone like you.

They are the same thing in my book.

That's because you're a low-life douchebag.

And dumb as a bag of marbles.

As must be 99.99% of the AIDS researchers, doctors, etc
in the world. Because they agree that HIV is the cause of
AIDS. Now, let me see, which group would I rather be in?
That group or in the group with you, which consists of a
bunch of denialists with no qualifications, supported by
a couple of "scientists" who are not even AIDS researchers,
don't actually treat patients, etc, but some of whom
do write of talking to glowing alien raccoons?



[...]

Exactly what you AIDS/HIV denialists do when you
come up with one bogus explanation after another to
explain away AIDS/HIV deaths in blood transfusion
recipients, hemophiliacs, soccer moms, Africans,
etc.

But there's nothing bogus about them. *You're just too dumb to
understand how to reason for yourself. You're forced to parrot the
"conventional wisdom" because you're incapable of thinking for
yourself.


Let's look at just a couple of your denialist claims and see just
how totally bogus they really are.

Claim #1 AIDS is caused by recreational use of drugs, not HIV


The truth is that study after study has shown that absent
HIV infection recreational drug users do not develop AIDS.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a
person will develop AIDS.

Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns
and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals
from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women,
homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of
hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and
infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator
being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).

In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining
illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-
infected.

For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV
Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive
were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness
than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide
a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research.

In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a
median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in
individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the
fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug
use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet
1993;341:658)."


And your studies that say recreational drug use does
cause AIDS? crickets......

The best you can come up with is
a 30 year old paper speculating that recreational drug use
MIGHT be the cause of AIDS. That from a time when the
disease was new, HIV had not been isolated, and research
was just beginning. Of course, just like a
holocaust denier those are the tactics you have to resort
to because all the real evidence says you're a liar. The
rest of the real world quickly figured out that drug use
was not the cause when we say hemophiliacs and
blood transfusion patients coming down with AIDS too


Claim #2 - Recreational drug use, lack of sleep, poor nutrition, etc
cause the total loss of immune system cells in AIDS patients.

In fact, there is no evidence even one such patient exists.
That is a person who has somehow managed to destroy their
immune system to the point that recovery is not possible
even though the alleged cause has now been removed. Show
us the study. Show us the patients. Show us where a
recreational drug user, not infected with HIV, has an immune
system with no CD4 cells. What's the matter? Hasn't
Duesberg, Montagnier, or any of the other clowns had
enough time in the last 30 years to do a study and find them?

On the other hand, we have study after study that shows
you do see exactly this total loss of immune system cells
in people infected with HIV. And we have study after study
that shows absent HIV infection, people in those groups,
ie drug use, poor nutrition, multiple sexual partners,
blood transfusions, etc never develop AIDS.

Again, a lie and methods that are in the class of those that
deny the holocaust.

On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Dogman wrote:

Then they
should feel free to keep that a secret,

But why would they do that??? *WTF?

They would do it because they listen to nuts like
you who say HIV is harmless. If it's harmless, then
there is no reason to disclose it or take precautions
from infecting someone else. Are you that stupid
that you can't see the logical consequences of
believing that HIV is harmless?





not disclose
it to sexual partners, for example, because, it's just
harmless.

But it *is* harmless!


And again, this is why you and the other denialists are
more dangerous than holocaust deniers. Listening to you
is encouragement to have unprotected sex, to not
disclose that you are HIV infected, because according
to you, HIV is harmless.




It's the *drugs* that aren't harmless, you dip****.

Yes, so harmful that today patients on AIDS drugs
are living long lives instead of dying in a year like they
were when there were no AIDS drugs.
The ones still dying? The denialists who believe HIV
is harmless and refuse drugs.

We had 30% of babies born to mothers infected with
HIV being infected. Today, using AIDS drugs prior to
birth, that infection rate has dropped to just a few percent.
Powerful proof, except to a denialist.





It's the lifestyle that isn't harmless.


Some lifestyles certainly lead to becoming infected
with HIV and developing AIDS. In other cases,
like the soccer mom infected from a husband or
a baby born to an HIV infected mother, their lifestyle
had nothing to do with it. But being a bigot it's necessary
to lump them all together to try to marginalize it and
make it "their fault".




In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. *Only the *antibodies* are found!

Again, the phoney strawman is raised.

Following that denialst crap, then hepatitis, syphilis, tuberculosis,
lyme,
pick your disease are not caused by the underlying virus or
bacteria either, because exactly the same types of tests are used.

But in the case of HIV/AIDS, it's far better than that. We actually
do measure the levels of the virus. If you
knew anything about current treatments, you would know that
we have tests that measure the ACTUAL LEVEL OF VIRUS.
It's used as part of the treatment protocols to know when the
virus has been surpressed to low or undetectable levels. We
see that the condition of the patients, ie how advanced the
AIDS is, directly corelates to the level of HIV virus in the patient.
Very low levels of virus, patient is doing fine and symptom free.
High levels of virus, then you have low levels of CD4, patient
gets opportunistic infections, wastes away, etc. Really, really
simple and powerful proof. Except it's ignored by denialists,
just like Auschwitz is ignored by your holocaust kin.